A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why is a get given "kintzei shtarchov" (on condition you find something better) invalid unless the husband says "hagita" (I told you)? The shiur analyzes the machlokes between the Ba'al HaMa'or and the Ra'avad on whether the problem is lack of knowledge of the husband's intent (da'at) or constitutes bitul ha-get. The resolution hinges on distinguishing between nullifying a get after nisina has begun versus postponing the nisina itself.
The shiur begins with a fundamental question from the Ba'al HaMa'or on the Gemara (גמרא) in Gittin 78a regarding the case of kintzei shtarchov (a get given on condition that the wife finds something better). The Gemara elsewhere (in Yevamos) states that when a man gives a get and says "get zeh she'ani nosen l'ishti" (this is a get that I am giving to my wife) to witnesses, but then tells the wife "kintzei shtarchov zeh" (on condition you find something better), she is nonetheless divorced because of the principle "lo binan daita" (we don't require her da'at/knowledge). The Ba'al HaMa'or asks: if we don't need the wife's da'at, then why should saying kintzei shtarchov invalidate the get at all? What possible deficiency could there be in saying those words if da'at is not required? The shiur explores multiple dimensions of this question. One critical issue is whether there is a requirement of amira (verbal declaration) in gittin. The Gemara says "tzarich l'fareish" (one must specify), suggesting that some verbal declaration is necessary. But what exactly needs to be said, and to whom? The shiur examines whether this is similar to the requirement by kiddushin with a shtar, where Rashi (רש"י) holds no verbal declaration to the woman is needed because the shtar itself contains the necessary language.
Looking for the full summary?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Gittin 78a
Looking for the full transcript?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Dedicate a Shiur in Gemara
L'ilui nishmas a loved one. In honor of a simcha or yahrzeit. As a zechus for a refuah sheleimah. Your dedication helps carry Rabbi Zweig's Torah to learners around the world.
Why does the Gemara present a kal v'chomer for chuppah making kiddushin based on kesef not being maichel b'terumah, only to reject it? The shiur reveals that even the rejected kal v'chomer establishes a fundamental yesod: kiddushin is a kinyan for ishus (marital relationship), not merely a kinyan in hilchos kinyanim. The second kal v'chomer—from chuppah being gomeres—raises Tosafos's famous question.
Is the kesef used in kiddushin a true kinyan (acquisition), or merely a symbolic means of establishing marriage? The shiur analyzes multiple interpretations of the Gemara's derivation from ki yikach ki'ach mi'Sayeffron, exploring whether marriage constitutes ownership, and develops three fundamental approaches: (1) The Gemara proves ishus is a kinyan, (2) ishus is not a kinyan but uses kinyan-like means, or (3) ishus is a kinyan but the kesef may not be a ma'aseh kinyan. The Rambam's position—calling kesef "midivrei sofrim"—is explained as distinguishing between cross-referencing concepts versus borrowing terminology.
Why does the Mishna alternate between the language of "kinyan" (acquisition) and "kiddushin" (sanctification) when describing marriage? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: marriage has two separate aspects—a kinyan dimension (ownership) and a kedusha dimension (sanctified relationship). Either aspect can initiate the bond, and understanding this dual nature resolves multiple textual and halachic questions throughout the sugya.
Does kiddushei shetar require a shevah pruta? The Ran presents two approaches to the Rif's position. The shiur develops the Ran's second pshat that shetar kiddushin functions as a hachnah (exchange) rather than a mere kinyan nesina. This reading has profound implications for isuri hana'ah, mechubar, and the relationship between kesef and shetar.
